Blessed is he who expects no gratitude, for he shall not be disappointed.

– W.C. Bennett

Back in 1852 the troop ship HMS Birkenhead sank in shark infested waters off the coast of South Africa. There weren’t enough lifeboats to save everyone, and the captain made the extraordinary decision to reserve them for the women and children aboard. The crew followed the captain’s order even though it meant his and many of their own deaths. This incredible example of men sacrificing for others has made what otherwise would have been an obscure shipwreck a famous event in history.

Even a century and a half later, women still understand the meaning of the profound sacrifice made by those brave men:

Men owe us.

A similar event occurred in 1912 when RMS Titanic struck an iceberg. Well over a thousand men stood aside and died so that mostly women (and a lesser percentage of children) could survive. Women understood the meaning of that sacrifice as well:

You got off easy. The women who survived are the ones who had to suffer. We didn’t ask you to do this for us anyway.

And of course:

Men owe us.

One of the videos I saw after the sinking of the Costa Concordia had an overweight American woman with a short haircut complaining:

It certainly wasn’t women and children first!

She said this in the form of an indictment, with the obvious expectation that all listening would see it as proof of an outrageous dereliction by the men on the ship. She and countless other women believe that since some men have volunteered to die in shipwrecks in the past, all men will forever have an obligation to do so. What men in the past did was an incredible act of graciousness; it has been met with an equally incredible lack of grace in return.

I’ve searched the web looking for a copy of the video to share, but unfortunately I couldn’t find it. What I found instead was even more powerful however. Sheila Gregoire wrote a post/syndicated column shortly after the Costa Concordia went down titled: Women and Children First? A Feminist Tragedy (emphasis mine):

In the comments I’ve been reading on the news reports, people seem to agree that children should be given priority, but there’s a heated debate about the women. We’re equal, so why should a man lose a place to a woman? Why should a man have to help a woman when he’s in danger, too?

And, as disgusting as I find that question, it makes sense. In 1912 it was a different world. Personal responsibility was still the main ethos of the day. People took care of their neighbours; they did not wait for government to do it for them. And people had a code of honour that included helping others when you could.

Somehow we have lost that. It is no longer about honour and what we should do for others; it has become what others should do for us.

I assume the irony is lost on her that her response to men having shown incredible selflessness is to be upset that men might at times elect to take care of themselves instead of focusing on people like her. As I have written before, making chivalry mandatory or expected destroys the very concept. It isn’t just feminists who destroyed chivalry, but feminist-lite women who view themselves as traditional.

Even so it wasn’t Sheila’s blog post which really startled me, it was the comments from many of the women who read her blog. Several of the women understood the issue and why men made different choices on that wreck than on certain shipwrecks in the past. But others took an attitude of incredible entitlement, assuming that men in general exist to serve them. Commenter Rachel started by explaining that men owe this to women because women’s lives are worth more than men’s:

Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.

She then describes how she rudely bumped into a man in an elevator because she assumed he would understand that she has a special right to exit elevators first, even though of course she is his equal:

That being said, I was just thinking of this topic last night. I was sharing an elevator with a man about my age. When the elevator stopped, I automatically started to get off and he almost ran into me! I am so used to men letting me get off the elevator first, it hadn’t occurred to me that he wouldn’t. Once I righted myself, I got thinking about it and why would he let me off first? I am his equal. I started to think if there was a scientific reason, and I could not come up with one. In fact, I thought maybe the man should go first to let him see if it’s safe (I’ve watched too much late night drama and seen too many people get attacked getting off elevators).

Even though the uppity man in the elevator didn’t know his place, she graciously suggests that there are times when it is acceptable for a man to enter a lifeboat:

The thought process led to thinking about the “women and children first” policy and I do still think that applies, unless the child who is getting on the life boat is only accompanied by his/her father. I think then the dad should be able to get on the life boat with his child(ren).

I want to back up and remind you that before 1852 there was no such expectation that men should stand by and drown in order to save women who in most cases are strangers. The sense of entitlement so many women now have because of acts of incredible selflessness by men in the past is astonishing.

Another commenter named Britiney who writes a blog called Consider the Lillies read Sheila’s post and it reminded her of a time recently when men she didn’t know failed to snap-to and be her personal unpaid valet. It happened when she exercised poor planning while taking her computer in for repair:

Along the same lines and under the heading of “Chivalry is dead” I had to take my computer to the repair shop last week. I took it to the Apple store in our local mall and, not knowing that there was a “secret” entrance close to the store, I lugged it all the way through the parking lot, and then all the way through the mall and then BACK because I decided to take it somewhere else. I don’t know how much it weighs, but by the time I got all the way back to my car I was nearly in tears because it was SO heavy and I was SO frustrated. And here’s my point: I cannot even tell you how many able-bodied young men I passed while I was carrying something that was OBVIOUSLY too heavy for me. When I finally got to my car I called my husband and told him that my boys will NEVER pass someone who needs help and not offer to help them. I was so disgusted that not one single man offered to help me! So so so sad. I can’t influence any of the men who passed me by, but I can certainly influence the 3 young men God has entrusted to my care and if I have ANYTHING to do with it, they WILL put women and children first!!!

This reminded me of a comment Hestia made on a previous post on this topic about a woman who saw a group of servicemen returning from active duty, and was upset that they didn’t volunteer to carry her load for her:

Basically here is a group of largely men who have been sacrificing on behalf of the nation (or so the story goes) who haven’t done enough for this pampered princess. So it seems to go not only with soldiers in particular but men in general when it comes to chivalry.

One thing men need to understand is that in the event that they make the kind of sacrifice women are demanding, not only will it lead to even more entitlement, but many women will still detract from the noble nature of your choice. Commenter Amanda wrote:

Not to undermine your point, but when the Titanic sank, women and children were NOT put first. Sure, they started the evacuations like that, and there were men of honor, but there were also the men who locked the doors to the third class section so that those people wouldn’t take up lifeboat space, and the coward who pushed women and children aside in their haste to get into a boat.

After Sheila challenged her on the historical accuracy of this claim, Amanda replied with:

Well, it’s been a few years since I did all the reading I did on the Titanic, but I was pretty interested as a youngling, and the picture I got from the books was one of polite, subversive cowardice slowly escalating to outright anarchy and panic.

Understand that if you sacrifice yourself for women you don’t know that most women will simply take your act of ultimate selflessness as proof that men owe them. A significant number will also deny the bravery of your dying act.

130 Responses to The gift transformed into a debt.

“Understand that if you sacrifice yourself for women you don’t know that most women will simply take your act of ultimate selflessness as proof that men owe them. A significant number will also deny the bravery of your dying act.”

“If men have all the power, how come women make up all the rules?”

When men and women have opposite interests, women often try to make up rules to their advantage, rather than to manage on ongoing quid pro quo, where services/actions/responisibilites are acknowledged. The history/counting never starts with a woman owing a man, but always with a man owing a woman. There does not have to be a reason, in form of a positive action from the woman to the man, for a man to be owing a woman.

I wonder to what extent the two tragedies you mention, coming at either end of the Victorian Era and both involving British ships, can be attributed to 19th century AngloChivalry towards women, a Chivalry doubtless replicated in America, but possibly unknown anywhere else or at any time and certainly now well on the way out.

I cannot off-hand think of any similar incident from Antiquity. Is there one?

HMS Birkenhead would have been a Sailing Ship, and life was pretty tough for Mariners. I have in my possession a log written (contemporaneously) in 1833 by my Great Great Grandfather of a voyage, where he was first officer, returning from Canada to England: The weather was atrocious and the ship almost unmanageable; sailors were dieing at the rate of one a day (!) but eventually the Ship made it into Hull. He clearly had not expected to survive. In such circumstances bravery may be more common than where one expects and is used to an easy life.

Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.

Well, now, that’s a laugh. The ONE thing women can do that men cannot and how well are they doing it? Let’s see, how many abortions have there been since Roe vs. Wade?

I don’t know how much it weighs, but by the time I got all the way back to my car I was nearly in tears because it was SO heavy and I was SO frustrated. And here’s my point: I cannot even tell you how many able-bodied young men I passed while I was carrying something that was OBVIOUSLY too heavy for me.

Maybe fish DO need a bicycle after all.

Makes me recall the time I was at the airport. The baggage claim area and the entrance to the parking garage are one level apart. There’s an escalator and, next to it an elevator, connecting the two levels. I came upon a woman struggling to get a heavy suitcase on to the escalator. I did the chivalrous thing and pointed out the elevator to her.

Remember that the Contra Costa is not the Titanic or even the Birkenhead. It had plenty of lifeboats. It did not have a women and children first because it expected all passengers and crew to board boats. All modern passenger ships have plenty of lifeboats. The boat went down in shallow water within easy swimming distance of the coast in water that was not frigid or shark infested. The ship didn’t entirely sink, so theoretically, any passenger who missed his lifeboat could have just remained aboard and suffered no ill effects other than eventual starvation. Families (which include men) would be expected to board lifeboats together. But when the alarm sounded, the families may have been scattered around the ship. What one passenger saw as “men pushing to the front” may simply have been fathers looking for their families and crewmen getting to their assigned stations. most people are stupid and don’t really know what is going on around them. The Contra Costa example is not a tale of men forgetting chivalry, but of men acting reasonably and following the rules that exist today, instead of following a myth that was never cruise ship policy or a custom of the seas.

The woman whose bag was too heavy could have rented a cart or even paid a skycap to tote it for her. That is what adults do who take more bags than they can carry. I am sure if she had asked for the advice of all those able-bodies men, they would have shown her how to leave most of that stuff behind so that it would be within her capabilities.

I have to add, the only woman I’ll volunteer to help is one who was raised in the pre-feminist era. That would probably put them in the late 70’s and older age bracket at this point in time. I will certainly help a woman if she asks for my help, but I screen out the feminist opportunists by prefacing my help with “Ah, so the fish needs a bicycle.” If she’s humble enough to accept my help after that snide remark, I’ll do so cheerfully, without further comment. There’s rarely an opportunity to try it out since most women do not ask for help. They expect it. Sorry, they’ll have to get it from someone else in that case. For decades, women collectively have beaten it into me that they don’t need me or any other man. I can take the hint.

“Even a century and a half later, women still understand the meaning of the profound sacrifice made by those brave men:

Men owe us”

Note to ladies: Men don’t owe you scratch.
Treat the average men no better than the average turd you let into the loo every day, and then expect the average man to say thank you by laying his life in line so you can continue turding day in day out.

Costa concordia is not even a tragedy. so many passengers, so few dead…

What it is, it is another event that will open many more thousand men’s eyes to the fact that their life means jack shyt for the women.

if it were left to women, it would be “Women, children and cats first”.

The woman you quote:

” And, as disgusting as I find that question, it makes sense. In 1912 it was a different world. Personal responsibility was still the main ethos of the day. People took care of their neighbours; they did not wait for government to do it for them. And people had a code of honour that included helping others when you could.

Somehow we have lost that. It is no longer about honour and what we should do for others; it has become what others should do for us.”

Wasn’t it always like that for women?

When i was shouting in the army of a patriarchal society with 6000 other men, “I will gladly die for flag and country”, what were the 6000 or more women in the spectators seat doing besides cheering? Eating cookies and drinking free coffee.

1912 was a different world. You ladies killed it.

Now, on the same topic, just this morning I was listening to Michael Coren hosting Mark Steyn. (With Coren I agree on most surface issues, except the issue which I think is one of the two roots of the issues; and I think Steyn has written one of the most important books of the last years)

And of course they hit on the topic of the accident.

The gist was, men are cowards, women and children first is of course a way of humanity, etc etc, when Coren says something like,

“when did we turn so cowardly (or selfish…?) that to expect our lives are more important than others” about men

Dude… the reason you totally attacked men because men decided to think that way, in the 7 minute segment, is the same reason you applaud women for having thought that way for eons.

Women think their life is more valuable and men owe them : Having values (????)
Men think their life is as valuable and yet women owe them nothing : Cowardice and selfishness

This is my one big peave with the conservatives. they totally play into the woman’s frame. Yes, I divide men and women, as there is a gender war, and I did not start it, and I did not participate in, but had to live through and be attacked from all sides, i am not taking the high ground anymore, and apparently the men on the concordia are with me on this.

One minute you say women should get on the lifeboats first, children next, men last (what if there are not enough lifeboats?), because that is normal. Meaning, it is normal for a woman to think her life is more valuable, and she is not a coward for it, and also consequentially, a man is not too much of a braveheart or sacrificingdonkey for playing to that frame; his sacrifice and bravery does not even get halfway of an acknowledgment,

But when a man decides his life is valuable, he is suddenly an evil selfish bastard?

I tell you one thing:

The men on the titanic died. They sacrificed their lives; even young boys. I not their sacrifice, and the great bravery that they showed in silently going down;

But the selfish cowards of the Concordia; who may not have sacrificed themselves; have done a great service to society and men in general; by letting themselves live, and causing this vile hypocrisy to surface.

Well of course, men only exist to make the lives of women easier. Anything other than that is merely a circumstance of the ugly Patriarchy showing its head once again. The whole entire history of humanity has been men giving up their lives for the continuance of their tribe. It seems that this disgusts women to such an extent that they will degrade it continuously as being ‘of the patriarchy’ whilst in the same breath demanding that men still give up their lives for these princesses.

It is truly astonishing. As a man, I will gladly protect a woman that I love, such as my mother, sisters and other female family members. As long as I am afforded the respect that should come with such a sacrifice. Why else would I do it? I have no interest in the continuance of a bunch of feral, entitled and slutty princesses. To sacrifice for them would be the complete opposite of an ‘act of kindness’. A sacrifice is made for something worthy, not a piece of trash!

I also feel extremely sorry for those three boys that came from that vile anti-male mother of theirs. Truly disgusting, as a mother she should be interested in raising three well adjusted, free thinking men, not slaves. But no! She’s only interested in turning them into good little resources, that should be sacrificed on a whim in order to put women first. Shocking, so happy I did not have a mother like that.

It is a fact of life that, if you let other people treat you like crap, they will. Men, as the physically and intellectually dominant sex, are to blame for their own plight. And only men can make things right.

Women will always be what they are, and every man knows, deep in his heart of hearts, what they are. In a logical world, any man who called for mindless, institutionalized misandry and chivalry, would be ostracized by other men. We all know why that is not so today, and the answer does men no credit.

“Once I righted myself, I got thinking about it and why would he let me off first? I am his equal.”

As his “equal” he has been conditioned that you should be treated as one of the guys, with no more or less courtesy than a man would be entitled to. Men extend courtesy to each other all the time, but a thoughtful is wary about being courteous to a strange woman. The response may well be an icy glare, or in a really progressive environment, a lecture on how sexist and demeaning to women it is for men to be courteous. No worries though. Because men are no longer courteous to women, women are accordingly relieved of their duty to act politely. It’s all good – we are told that “well behaved women never changed the world,” so being relieved of the duty to act courteously is a positive development for women, they are now free to be as bad as they wanna be in their revolutionary quest for whatever it is they actually want. So go for it Grrrrrls!

As for the luggage hauling failure, servicemembers receive frequent training on avoiding sexism and harassment, and they are not allowed to patronize women by acting as if they believe the sexist myth that women have less upper body or overall strength. With the exception of lodging, toilet arrangements, and those bastard sexists in combat arms jobs, military men are not permitted to treat women differently, and any disparate treatment is grounds for punishment under the UCMJ. (The combat arms jobs are different because, as it turns out, 90 pound rucksacks, 75 pound projectiles and 260 pound track sections are incorrigible sexist pigs that won’t allow the vast majority of women to lift them, probably for political reasons…)

So the failure of the returning servicemembers wasn’t really a failure of courtesy or chivalry, it was in fact a triumph of giving women what they have voted for, a win for Pat Schroeder and all the folks championing equal treatment of women in the military. We should be proud that our troops have learned this lesson so well – women are treated equally. That means they can carry their own luggage or computer or mortar shells.

I don’t get the griping. The women got what they asked for. And as for you complainers, since you’re equal, I’ll treat you as an equal and tell you the same thing my friends tell me when I’m whining about life not being fair: You’re whining like a bitch and making an ass of yourself, dude. Man the fuck up!

Did the women in front know how to operate the lifeboat lowering equipment? If not, then men needed to push through. And I doubt there is any “women and children first” policy if there is enough lifeboats for everyone. No sacrifice would be necessary.

It is an after-the-fact contrivance that there was a need for men to sacrifice.

Of the 24 girls, now all women in their late twenties or early thirties, 8 are now married (1 separated), 4 of those with children. Additionally there are 2 unwed mothers, and 4 engaged women (including one of those unwed mothers who is “saving to get married”). Which means only a quarter of these middle class, presumably educated women have produced children and only half of them are even close to providing the kind of default suitable environment for children their great-grandmothers slid into by default. And all of them, including the future queen, are past the age of easy fecundity. The rest of them have exciting careers in HR, office management, the postal service, and dental hygiene.

The simple solution for a man is to protect HIS woman and HIS children and extend this courtesy to other men of integrity and protect their women and children. If a man does not know the man a woman “belongs” to then there is no obligation. If this is practiced, men’s actions do not become an entitlement to women rather a mutual aid to other men he respects.

About elevators: I most often try to leave elevators as the first man, both out of convenience for me and as a service to tohers, since I walk fast and most often the people behind will end up with a door that I can open more easily than them. If women insist on getting out first, I will walk slowly behind them, to make them feel uncomfortable and so that they have to open the following door for me.

But some women are really a piece of work. Once I opened a door for my kids and a woman would insist on taking advantage of the situation to enter, rather than let me stay close to my kids.

Perhaps the man was in a hurry to get off of the elevator in order to minimize the risk of a false charge of sexual harassment. I know men in the corporate world who as a policy do not ride alone on an elevator with one or more women, ever. They’ll get out and wait for another elevator if necessary to avoid such a situation.

“And all of them, including the future queen, are past the age of easy fecundity.”

IDK. 28,9 was the Swedish average in 2009 and women still manage to come close to replacement levels with 1,94 children per woman (but then again most of these children were born when the average age was 1-2 years lower.

It is an interesting question to ask – were all the men on the cruise ship really pushing children and women out of the way to get to lifeboats? How do the women interviewed really know where those men were going? How do they know that they weren’t fathers rushing to the aid of Women and Children? How does the grandmother know that?

Oh, I forgot. Women, being more empathetic, can read minds at a glance (some can even spot entitled women just by looking at them), and divine motives in a second. And they never lie. About anything (especially about their own motives…).

Da wimminz have lots of rules for elevators. You’re not only supposed to let them on and off first, you have to let them stand in the back because strange men behind them makes them nervous. So you gotta let them on, stand in front, and make sure you’re ready to get out of her way when she’s ready to get off.

Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.

Trust a woman to think that not putting women and children first, within the emergency situation of a sinking cruise ship, will determine the survival of the human race. Haha, truly idiotic! The greatest threat to humanity and the number of children that the West is having, i.e. below replacement levels, is almost 100 % to do with women forsaking their motherly duties for fancy careers and then complaining about it after the fact. Putting off having children till much later in life or not having them at all. Even if her above example were true, none of today’s women deserve to be sacrificed for, merely because being a mother for them is oppression and therefore not really an option.

Do women even have the ability to think a simple thought through to the end? Or do they only deal with random thoughts that are sifted through the incoherent, mindless chatter that is produced within their minds? I think most women only ask one question when dealing with the consequences of their actions. And that is. Are the consequences good for women? If the answer is ‘yes’ then all is good. If the answer is ‘no’ then all hell must be had until the answer is ‘yes’.

They simply cannot understand that the consequences to one’s actions are determined not by ‘yourself’ but by those interacted with. And therefore, in reality, no matter how much you screech and moan, no matter how much you shame and coerce, no matter how much you would want to change the consequences, the reality of your actions will always catch up with you. Maybe for the first time in human history, women might finally have to see this as it stares them in the face. However, the hamster might overcome, one never truly knows.

The argument that women are more valuable because they are the limiting factor in reproduction only holds when women are actually performing that role. In no way does it hold when the political representatives of that sex have been obsessed with pursuing and maintaining the right to murder said offspring at their most vulnerable stage of development. Sorry.

As for “women and children first”, as has been pointed out, this is not even pragmatically necessary any longer as there are enough boats and the like for all comers in these situations. In other situations where there may not be enough time for everyone to get off the boat/plane/etc., I see no reason to give preference to a woman who is just as likely to be a baby-killer (or baby-killer supporter) as she is to be an actual “breeder” (to use the preferred pejorative of the feminist/gay lobby).

In my own personal life, this stuff rarely comes up. Where I work, the basic office rule is “ladies first” onto elevators, while getting off is based on who is standing in front. I don’t like this, but I don’t buck it because it is the unwritten rule. We have no unwritten rules about women standing in the back, however. In terms of doors, we don’t have many. The front doors in and out of the building is where is generally comes up, and there the unwritten rule is a rather studied, cursory look over the shoulder to see if someone is behind you when exiting such that holding the door on your way out may be good courtesy. Most men and women alike do this for whomever is exiting after them, although I have noticed more women than men ignoring the unwritten rule (which isn’t surprising).

I do remember one time when I was on a business trip to Europe and a few female execs in their early 50s came along and one of them was having a hard time loading her overheavy bag into the overhead bin. None of the guys in the business class around me were lending a hand, just sitting reading or whatever (most also being male execs). Eventually some guy came along from the other compartment and picked up her bag to put it in the bin, and she was very pointed about saying, overloudly, “Oh, I’m glad SOMEONE finally came along to HELP me!” before sitting down in a huff next to her fellow sisterhood member. I glanced over at the guy next to me, and he was rolling his eyes and slightly shaking his head … I slightly grinned back before going back to my book. I thought it was a pretty good statement about how male and female execs of a certain age (I’m saying 40+ at this point, as everyone in this scenario other than the guy who picked up the bag was 40+) feel about each other, when they are not obligated to act otherwise due to business reasons (i.e., working in the same company, or working on a deal with someone from another company).

What strikes me about the WACF/Costa Concordia is women’s shock, outrage and indignation that this is the state of things now: Men won’t hold doors for women. Men won’t defer to women in social or professional situations. Men won’t extend courtesies to women that they would not extend to any man. Men won’t come to the aid of a woman obviously outmatched by a heavy load or physically demanding task.

The opposite used to be part of common courtesy. The other part was that women were expected to accept the aid graciously and with gratitude. It was the lubricant that greases the gears of society. Women have for a long time insisted that extending such courtesies is sexist in a post-modern society.

I won’t hold doors for women any more. I won’t let them exit elevators first unless they are in front of me and it’s easier for them to exit first. I don’t help women with physically demanding tasks. I won’t ever be alone with any woman I’m not related to. When at work I take great care never to be alone with only one woman and never hold closed door meetings with any woman.

Isn’t this what women wanted, what they fought for? Is anyone surprised that this is the way things are now?

This reminds me of something Dalrock said a while ago, in a different context:

“Who reading this doesn’t understand that this was absolutely bound to happen? Why is anyone surprised at this? After 40 years of cumulative one sided demands (and concessions), men now see another option. Feminists and Traditional Conservatives are furious. How dare they choose something else! *** All I can say is they should get used to it.”

As I think about this more, I sense something else here. Women would not be upset if only alphas were standing up for themselves and not extending courtesies. In fact, alphas have always done this, simply striding through life and using women at their leisure.

The reason women are up in arms is because it’s the betas who won’t give themselves up for women who are strangers to them. More and more betas are deciding they won’t throw their coats on the puddles for the dainty women to walk upon. The betas are now standing up and telling women they won’t toss themselves onto grenades for women.

I guess I qualify as a traditional man then. I act in a traditional way but not for the reasons stated above.

I let women out of elevators first so I can check out their asses.

I never lie to women either. I have been far more successful in telling them the blunt truth and letting them lie to themselves.

It is wonderful to simultaneously possess a clean conscience, a dirty mind, success with women and society’s stamp of approval.

Whoever said it first was dead on. Success with women is far more disillusioning than failure.

Also, slightly off topic. I never ask a women if she has a husband or a boyfriend. I always ask if they have “caught a man” yet. I find it changes the frame and their mindset from the start. Only lasts about 8 minutes until their programming reverts to the mean but that is enough time to get your foot in the door

I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you wont. You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality. Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminne-centric reality. Men making the personal sacrifices necessary to honor, respect and love her are commonplace. You’re supposed to do those things. You sacrificed your ambitions and potential to provide her with a better life? You were supposed to. You resisted temptation and didn’t cheat on your wife with the hot secretary who was DTF and ready to go? You were supposed to. Your responsibilities to maintaining a marriage, a home, your family, etc. are common – they’re expected. They are only appreciated in their absence.

This is the totality of the feminine-centric reality. Men only exist to facilitate the feminine reality, and any man who disputes this (or even analyzes its aspects) is therefore not a ‘man’. It just IS. Even the most self-serving, maverick among men is still beholden to the feminine imperative in that he’s only defined as a rebel because he doesn’t comply with the common practices of ‘men’ in a female defined reality. And ironically it’s just this maverick who is appreciated by the feminine above those men who would comply with it (or even promote it) as a matter of course.

The concept of appreciation really dovetails into a lot of other aspects of intergender relations.

For instance in The Mature Man thread; assume for a moment that a 40 y.o. Man with the options to pursue younger women “does the right thing” and seeks out a relationship with a woman his own age. Would he be appreciated for essentially giving an aged woman a new lease on life? Or would he be viewed as doing what is to be expected of him?

Would a man who marries a single mother and helps with the parental investment of another man’s child be appreciated more for having done so? Would it even factor into a woman’s estimation of his character, or would he simply be doing what’s expected of a ‘man’? The question of appreciation is a real quandary for the White Knight.

You are correct deti. For the greater mass of useless slaves, the queen bee has been able to expect, up until very recently, deference and willing enslavement from her drones. She would take her moral high-ground as a female and hand him white feathers or give him a flint-lock rifle and send him off to “massacre an Indian village but remember to bring back the furs for us!”

For those with resources she would instead use selective praise to convince him he is a big strong man who has to take care of “widdle ol me” because shes just a weak little lady and math is hard!

What women are now seeing is that the men of resources are becoming immune to their claims of weakness, and the chattel men are becoming immune to their shaming language. What is a woman to do? The strong won’t protect me, and the weak ignore me entirely! When women decided they would rather vaccuum out their offspring than give birth to them, all bets were off.

A couple of remarks:
For the “enlightened women” who might be reading: in an emergency situation, I will only care about the women I know and care about. My wife, my mother, my sisters, my kids, after that, my brother’s wife and kids, my best friend’s wife and kids. Of course, my brother and my best friend will be in there with me doing the same. Then our arc closes into a circle, that’s it. If I don’t know you, I’m not feeling any sense of obligation to you. Sorry, them’s the breaks.

About Brendan’s remark the female exec looking for help to load her heavy bag into an overhead bin, I’ve done that for women a couple of times over the years. I did not do it out of any sense of obligation to women, I did it because she was blocking the aisle and holding up the line of boarding passengers. When they thanked me, I said to them, I didn’t do it for you, I did it to free up the line again, PLEASE carry something smaller next time! The looks I got were priceless!!! Ha!

“I won’t hold doors for women any more. I won’t let them exit elevators first unless they are in front of me and it’s easier for them to exit first. ”

I like Anonymous X comments which seems almost a reply to this. I helped a woman, a kind and good one but one who had been corrupted (some) by feminism, the other day. I was told I didn’t have to, I informed her I didn’t do it for her, I did it to complete my duties. I could tell that was a shock. She’s been much nicer ever since, and she started off as a very nice person.

We are trapped in a prisoners dilemma. As a race we do better when when women grease the wheels and where men act as befits their strength. However, so many have opted out of the “escape” that everyone is now choosing the non-optimal path. We know from prisoner’s dilemma simulations that it takes a very small percentage of “betrayals” to poison the whole system. Those commentators here who discuss protecting women who they have a direct relationship with are jewels. They are resetting the “betrayal” percentage. Good for them. Those who have opted out entirely though are just making things worse.

Great OP, I hadn’t realized the whole “women and children first” thing came from a specific incident, and one not so very long ago in historical terms. It is indeed disgusting that anyone should go from appreciating a selfless sacrifice to expecting it as no more than their due. It reminds me of the tradition of giving diamond engagement rings, which is less than 100 years old and was invented by a PR company hired by De Beers to help them capitalize on their diamond monopoly. Not that men should never buy women jewelry, but woe betide the poor soul who balks at paying 3 months’ salary to a monopoly for an overpriced flake of rock mined by slave labor in some African hellhole. God forbid he spend that money as a down payment on a first house or even to take his bride on a nice vacation, how could she interpret such a step as anything but a sign he doesn’t love her!

I never, ever help or aid women. I will help men and children. But not women. Every time I slam a door in a woman’s face, happily walk pass some blubberwhale carrying something heavy or grab the last seat on the subway, I smile inside and think “enjoy feminism!”

@Lavazza I can’t help feel that the IVF industry is used more than it’s needed. People are impatient or immediately assume they need help because of what they read in the papers.

It was quite interesting to me when I looked up the stats of babies born to women of different ages in the UK (related to a post of dalrock’s but my granny had mentioned it). There are only the same amount of babies born to over 40s now as there were back in the 1940s. i.e. the no is still relatively small but the so called rise is just going back to pre 1950s levels (I’m talking in terms of no of babies born to over 40s), not whether 1st or later). Given the population was smaller and the medical advances we have now, effectively (in %s etc) more babies were born to over 40s. No IVF then. Though as you say, STDs are obviously going to have an impact on fertility.

I actually found it quite eery at how similar the latest year recorded was to long ago.. The main difference is a shift from late 20s to early 30s. Most babies in the UK are born to women aged 30-34. But the teens, early 20s and over 40s really similar.

“The argument that women are more valuable because they are the limiting factor in reproduction only holds when women are actually performing that role.”

Indeed. I’d add that the law of cheap sperm and expensive eggs, repeated numerous times in the Manosphere, also presupposes that any man is willing to have unprotected sex with (and thus impregnate) any woman he comes across. This may have been the norm in past eras, and it probably still holds for the majority of the human race today, but it seems clear that it no longer applies to the average man in, say, the urban areas of the developed world.

Women and children first? Ok, but if we are going to use the fertility argument, we let all the women in their 20s and younger and children and then the rest of men. The other women 30+ can drown as they are not fertile but the men can still make children. Lets go with the rational of women being more important due to child bearing.

too often i’ve been on the receiving end of a withering look when holding open a door for a woman, so now i don’t do it any more other than i would reasonably hold a door for a man or a child to stop it from bashing them in the face.

and what’s with these double-wide baby strollers some women push at you in the grocery store or coffee shop, and expect you to move over?

and one of clients recently went through a divorce because his italian wife lost her parents, and to receive a half million dollar inheritance, she had to dump him as a condition of the will.

About the bumping incident in the elevator, the woman seems to be operating by a convention where she’ll go where she wants to go and it’s the mens’ responsibility to stay out of her way. That must be nice.

The convention I, and I assume many other people, operate by is that we go out the door in the order that gets us all out the door fastest. If there’s any doubt, you resolve it by a quick, 0.1 second, piece of non-verbal communication – make eye contact, small flick of the head to the side, smile, translation “after you, thank you, you’re welcome”.

The problem with that protocol is that making eye contact with a woman is likely to be taken the wrong way, especially if you’re alone with her in an elevator. So if I can’t avoid that situation in the first place, I give the woman as much space as possible, and then go where I need to go without making eye contact. So if our paths do get mixed up, it looks like I was horribly clumsy and rude, and wasn’t paying sufficient attention to other people. Which I guess is true in a way.

When a man is “too beta”, for whatever reason, he often finds that nothing he does is every good enough for the woman/women in his life. I’ve seen this happen to men in LTR’s, when stress from various sources causes them to crave some stability in the home and they get to the stage of “I’ll do whatever it takes to have some peace around here”. In that moment, when what they really need is calm and support, what they get is escalating shit tests. And as men tend to be problem solvers, a man who is in a very beta frame will strive to “solve the problem” presented by the shit tests – which is of course the wrong thing to do, and leads to further escalation in shit testing. There are various outcomes. But eventually, a man in that situation is going to check out, one way or another. Maybe he’ll physically leave, maybe he can’t leave because of duty & obligations but he can certainly spend as little time around the shit-testing stress generator, even if it means sitting right next to her but thoroughly “checked out” into the TV, the computer, a book, etc.

Oh, and there’s another outcome: “Ok, whatever I do isn’t good enough. Fine. I’m done. You win. From now on, I do nothing with you”. MGTOW, in one form or another.

On a civilizational scale, men are being told over and over again that whatever they do for women, it’s not good enough. This shipwreck has made that very clear. A handful of women are interviewed by a reporter, and the whole world decides that every single man on that ship was a coward, with a tiny handful of exceptions. Yet it is patently obvious from the very small number of deaths that this cannot be the case. Were the Italian helicopter pilots cowards? Someone piloted small boats away from the wreck, were those crew members cowards? It is painfully obvious that women are always ready to jump to conclusions about men, based on what just one other woman says.

Do this thought experiment. Imagine a newspaper article in which three women, one a granny lady, all said something like “Oh, that shipwreck was horrible! There were blacks and Asians running around, pushing women and children out of the way! None of the blacks or Asians would lend a hand!”. Does anyone seriously believe that there would then follow a wave of chin-stroking editorials and blog posts decrying the behavior of blacks and Asians? No! There would be a wave of criticism aimed at those women – pundits and bloggers would go out of their way to find black people and Asian people who had done noble deeds on the ship after the wreck. Why? Because prejudice against people on the basis of skin color is wrong, that’s why.

So how is it that we “know” all the men on this ship refused to help Women and Children? How is it that the words of a few women dictate what we believe about hundreds of men no one has even bothered to talk to?

Because prejudice against men, purely on the basis of their sex, is not only accepted, it is normal. From the tradcon right, to the muddled center to the feminized left, everyone accepts the claim of a handful of women unquestioningly, because we all know men bad, women good. This feminist trope is in the air we breath. And so, nothing men do is every good enough, because men themselves are just plain rotten to the core.

Again, nothing men do is “good enough” in the modern world. And we see men tuning women out, going their own way, telling women “you won! You get to run things! Knock yourself out!” as they walk away from it all. I predict this will only lead to a doubling down on the shaming language, the obscene fury directed at anyone with a Y chromosome in the press, in the legislatures, in relationships. And like an obese woman, standing by her husband in his recliner, bellowing ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME? ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION? the results will simply increase the number of men who just don’t give a damn anymore.

Women: if nothing men do for you is ever good enough, then why should we do anything for you at all? Because you’ve got a vagina? Try again. That one’s kind of, shall we say, worn out its welcome…

here’s a pretty typical post from a “Christian” woman, who supports, quotes, and compliments her chivalrous, neo-con “pastors” (Moody Church et al.)–

“How far we have descended since the Titanic’s ‘women and children first’ policy. “Women and children first” is a saying that asserts that the lives of women and children are to be saved first if the lives of a group of people are at stake. . . . Men showing off by swinging a multi-million dollar boat toward a rocky shore just because they feel like it, captain who violates the oldest moral law of the seas. . . . Selfish behavior, brutish pushing women and children aside, putting others in danger because of a whimsical decision by the captain on a lark, all point to the beginnings of the worst kind of behavior Paul said is going to be evident on a wider scale from then to now on until and through in the Tribulation.”

as usual, absolute and utter disinterest in the male-hating policies of her church and state that in fact brought about the Costa Concordia situation

no mention of feminism. . . see? those Horrible Men just arbitrarily STOPPED chivalry based on their Horribleness and Man-ness, which Christian (and secular) women like herself have been pointing out for over a century now….

absolutely NO understanding of, nor desire for, exchange of value between the male and female. . . just more whining and shaming and outrage that Those Bad Men, having been divested of their masculinity, are now not hopping-to and Manning Up to protect the wonderful wimmenz, who long ago organized quite effectively against male-interest and conquered the western nations

amazing, just amazing, the presumptuousness, willful blindness, and self-service of modern females

and this woman is 100 percent certain that Jesus is about to descend and rapture HER (and her simpering, emasculated neo-con pastors) into heaven so the entire universe can be the gyno-nightmare that amerika has become

I really notice a subtle racism among Northern European writers with this story. It just seems like Northern Europe has been rubbing itself raw over those swarthy dark haired Mediterraneans for a couple years now, and this story is taylor made for it.

From the last Thread:
“This captain has brought shame on Italy, a British captain (of a plane or ship) would never have acted like that.”
Sure sweetie, sure…

Gee, in reading this article, one might come to the conclusion that democracy will invariably lead to pervasive misandry, since women only vote for what benefits women, while men are also willing to die for women.

Understand that if you sacrifice yourself for women you don’t know that most women will simply take your act of ultimate selflessness as proof that men owe them. A significant number will also deny the bravery of your dying act.

This is why so many women are confident that feminism is moral – they see manginas and whiteknights *agreeing* with feminism.

Hey, if even the other side has people siding with us, surely feminism must be true!

I really notice a subtle racism among Northern European writers with this story. It just seems like Northern Europe has been rubbing itself raw over those swarthy dark haired Mediterraneans for a couple years now,

Are you aware of what has been happening in the Eurozone for the past 5 months, and who is getting bailed out by whom?

Thank you Dalrock
This article and what it shows in women is the reason for MGTOW. I know you blog from a family man point of view (to be honest a strong family is the foundation of a strong nation) and it must be eye opening or telling you something you knew to see what you are seeing doing the research for your blog.
It is going to take a full generation of real pain to break women of this crappy entitlement attitude. Like TFH says over and over females have no capacity to put two and two together with the cause and effect thing.
Brings me back to my favorite “fix’ involuntary childless spinsterhood. You keep this good writing up Dalrock and you may find yourself openly advocating MGTOW.

Women create artificial forms of morality, to add value to their own weaknesses, it is simply social camouflage, a social chameleon of morality, their weaknesses covered up with thick shades of artificial morality, which has never existed in nature

Artificial forms of morality allow women to leverage their weaknesses as strengths according to the latest trends in morality

While true morals are unchanging & unfashionable, their biological link make them unsuitable for a womans chameleon need for morality

Fashionable morality, with a hue for every occasion, be it an elevator, or race, or church

Women hide their weaknesses under a artificial form of morality, a artificial entitlement, while men use strength to reinforce their need for true biological morals, designed to create cities, by men for men

The strong use the weak to make them stronger, by protecting or discarding the weak the strong are stronger

Rmaxd
Good thoughts. Nietzsche said some similar things about slave morality and “ressentiment”. Women use their weakness as a moral weapon. I think Nietzsche could see that Protestantism was heading in the direction of being dominated by weakness. Pastor Driscoll’s ranting would not have surprised him in the least.

WRT elevator etiquette, I consulted a recent edition of Emily Post’s book on the subject. Guess what? You don’t automatically let women out first! Who goes first, then? Whoever is closest to the door, since this allows for the quick, orderly egress of the elevator passengers.

Women didn’t always respond ungraciously to acts of chivalry or courtesy. I remember as a young man in Melbourne in the late 70s/early 80s, changing tyres, carrying things, opening doors, giving up seats and I would always be met with a warm thank you and smile. It was part of an older and more cooperative culture between men and women – which perhaps explains why the feminists of that era chose to obliterate it (younger feminist women started to attack men who offered such things which quickly shut it down).

I can remember too travelling to Japan and being surprised by the absence of chivalry there. The most junior person would be assigned the heavy lifting tasks and if that happened to be a tiny young female then so be it.

Women didn’t always respond ungraciously to acts of chivalry or courtesy. I remember as a young man in Melbourne in the late 70s/early 80s, changing tyres, carrying things, opening doors, giving up seats and I would always be met with a warm thank you and smile. It was part of an older and more cooperative culture between men and women – which perhaps explains why the feminists of that era chose to obliterate it (younger feminist women started to attack men who offered such things which quickly shut it down).

What is so striking about this is these aren’t women who consider themselves feminist. This is a traditional conservative Christian woman’s blog, yet they are fully comfortable rattling off a laundry list of what men owe them and even deciding when it might be appropriate for men to utilize a lifeboat. This is so profoundly ungracious it confounds description. Yet they have absolutely no shame in doing this. They truly don’t see anything wrong in how they think about men.

“Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.”

Putting aside that that makes no sense given the size of the human population, even if it did make sense, that is a christian blog so presumably this is a woman who considers fornication and polygamy a sin. How would she expect the few surviving men to repopulate the tribe in the absence of polygamy or extramarital affairs?

“What is so striking about this is these aren’t women who consider themselves feminist.

Of course. That is how it is with all hate cults.

That a few nuts like Andrea Dworkin or Mary Daley call for male extermination is not noteworthy, but that 70-80% of women don’t care enough to push back is.”

Well put, of course feminism is a hate cult, it’s a vital part of understanding women

This is a vital part most dont want to get, feminism in ALL its types, is a hate cult

There is no such thing as a good feminist, they all hate men

As women only understand social context

They basically hate everything else

Their hatred of men is not unique, they also hate science, maths & engineering

In short women hate objectivity

Hate is all women see when confronted with a man, we’re too objective & impartial in our existence

Women dont know how to understand, or appreciate what makes up social context

Social context is built around the objectivity of social structure, ie objectivity is its goals & needs

Which is why they hate stuff like science, maths, engineering, it forces them to face the objectivity of their life, when all they want is analogy or the story so they can relate it to their social network

Women want the gossip of science, or maths & engineering, so they can relate it to their social network

There is no room for objectivity in a social network, women are designed to value the context & perception of the status of an object, not its contents

Women dont know how to understand, or appreciate what makes up social context

That is why they want to preserve the existing status quo, no matter how bad it is.

If the status quo changes from A to B and settles at B, they then want to preserve B.

This, incidentally, is why women are so terrified of Game, even though Game also benefits women. It introduces chaos into a system that they are evolved to manipulate, and they cannot adapt readily to this new dynamism.

Now here is one of my bigger points :

Technology *always* finds a way to progress. Always.

Anything that obstructs the advancement of technology either gets bypassed or obsoleted. Without exception.

I think many men were polite once to women, until some incident soured them. I got a bad reaction once, from a feminist colleague, in about 1983, and that taught me a (negative) lesson. I also got viciously verbally abused by a young feminist for refusing to put money in a collection she was taking up to support free public childcare. Men notice these things and take due note.

I don’t trust and like women as much as I used to. I think they have shown their true colours too much in recent years. Hearing decent looking matrons talk about how much they support abortion in case their daughters “need” one disgusted me too.

I once gave a drunk girl a lift to her college one night, to help her. I would not do that now. Too risky.

BTW, I am not a Nietzschean, but he did have insights. He was the son of a Protestant minister, so he had seen the way social trends might go. I think he would have been unsurprised by feminism. Christian feminism is the apotheosis of slave morality.

To that woman complaining about the MAN who turned the boat of its course, I would point out that the pleasure cruiser was designed and built by men, and that 99.999% of men do their duty. All men ask of women is that they not be sluts, nags or pro-aborts. Not that hard, really.

About 5 years ago I went to an HMS Titanic exhibit with a (very good) liberal friend of mine. When we got in line each person was given a replica ticket with a name on it from one of the original passengers. For about an hour we weaved around the show looking at all the stuff fished off of the bottom of the ocean and brought back to life. The last piece was a metal chunk of the hull which everyone got to touch. All in all, it was very impressive. Before we hit the exit there was one final display. It was a list of all the passengers. Everybody got to see if their character survived and whether they were 1st class, 2nd class, or steerage. My Marxist friend was gleefully pointing out how the 1st class passengers survived at a much higher rate than the proles due to discrimination, blah blah blah. To that I pointed out that the survival rate for women was much higher than even for 1st class passengers thereby proving that feminists where even more morally reprobate than the Capitalists. He quickly dropped the conversation.

“When I finally got to my car I called my husband and told him that my boys will NEVER pass someone who needs help and not offer to help them. I was so disgusted that not one single man offered to help me! So so so sad. I can’t influence any of the men who passed me by, but I can certainly influence the 3 young men God has entrusted to my care and if I have ANYTHING to do with it, they WILL put women and children first!!!”

@Lavazza
I do not know Swedish statistics on how many children different ethnics have and I think it is even banned to harvest such data.
But from I have observed in streets in one nameless Northern European country capital: native women with usually one child in streets and without any man around. Only with immigrants you could see full families – father, mother and several kids. And most muslims had more than two kids.
Statistics does not tell stories behind.

Recently you mentioned that descendants of immigrants born in Sweden have even less children than national average. But you have to consider several things:
Immigrants entering Western countries (excluding Germany) 25+ and especially 35+ years ago were often of a different nature and political opinions than now.
Their numbers were much lower and no ghettos were present.
Connection with their culture (via TV, the Internet, phones) was weaker.

“In 1912 it was a different world. Personal responsibility was still the main ethos of the day. People took care of their neighbours; they did not wait for government to do it for them. And people had a code of honour that included helping others when you could.”

Who are these “People” she’s talking about who took care of their neighbors and helped others by staying on the sinking ship and letting others have the lifeboats? I think instead of “People” she really means “men” but can’t torture herself enough to actually say it.

“This is a traditional conservative Christian woman’s blog, yet they are fully comfortable rattling off a laundry list of what men owe them and even deciding when it might be appropriate for men to utilize a lifeboat. This is so profoundly ungracious it confounds description. Yet they have absolutely no shame in doing this. They truly don’t see anything wrong in how they think about men.”

like Gregoire, the blog i cited is by a trad-con “christian” woman also, and thats it exactly, their lives have been so sheltered and privileged (tho they imagine otherwise) that they truly have zero empathy towards the reality of boys and men

these are people who are supposed to LOVE CHRIST! he’s a GUY remember? one of those Horrible Useless Males. . . hello anybody hello? thats what all of them are always bleating on about, how theyve accepted jesus into their hearts as personal savior and blah de fuck blah

the guy who hung out with the homeless, tax collector scum, and “criminals” rather than their sorry hypocritical asses

the status of millions of males in the u.s. is quickly deteriorating into poverty and prison-enslavement, but the only thing on womens’ minds is why more chivarly and entitlements arent forthcoming upon demand

“I can certainly influence the 3 young men God has entrusted to my care and if I have ANYTHING to do with it, they WILL put women and children first!!!”

shake rattle and roll baby, if i have anything to do with it theyll put God first, and you in your place

Well, God is the one who always forgives, so these women feel free to do all the evil they can.
After all … “only God can judge me, hence I need have no concern for men! Since I’m forgiven all my sins”.
That’s why some people really love religion. It gives them the excuse that all the irresponsible and evil decisions they make, it is completely wrong that any other person judges them or tries to be compensated the effects of their selfish/thoughtless actions.

krakonos: You might be right. But I still visit Sweden a couple of times a year and I can’t say that I have the same impression as you. For every year I see more foreigners, that’s for sure, but for the details you mention I have not seen them. Swedish people are busy, and most of the time a parent will not bring the whole family, when a kid only needs the help of one parent.

@Lavazza
My observations are not from Sweden but from Denmark. I should have stated it, my fault. And reality depends on which town you visit. Especially smaller towns still resemble old days.
But what I stand for is my observation. When you live somewhere for a long time you might miss slow changes. But when you are a visitor there you can’t overlook it.
I expanded it to Sweden by generalization. I suppose the same changes (given similar amounts of immigrants from similar background) happening in Sweden too. Size of immigrant community, of course, depends on place. Tendenccies are the same – coverage of problems in media are similar for both countries.

The gift transformed into a debt.
AKA typical female behavior.
As to the stupid elevator twit, MarkyMark is right and at this rate she will run into someone’s elbow one of these days (accidentally, of course). After all, if women are equal to men, they should equally watch where they are going.
Women need to understand that if they, or their sisters, don’t know better than jostling people in elevators, they are lucky when they as anything other than worthless savages.

Uncle ElmerAs for the Costa episode, boat capsizings are routine in the third world, often with hundreds killed. Might be interesting to compare against western incidents.

I doubt that there is much equivalence. An overloaded ferry turning turtle won’t leave any time to launch any lifecraft, assuming there are any to launch. It’s like a roller coaster going off the rails. No opportunity or time for ‘anyone first”.

@Ray – yeah, the masculine side of Christ gets lost. He counseled to love one another, but he chastised sinners with shaming, or in the case of the moneychangers whipped them out of the temple. He knew he was facing the mother of all ass-whuppings along with a very painful death, and went into it fully cognizant, and freely choosing to do so. He was a good obedient son but independent when it was appropriate for him to do so, and he was a confident, strong leader, not a mewling lesser beta. His bottom line was also non-negotiable; believe in me, or you will face eternal damnation. Cantankerous old Ezra Pound got this in The Goodly Frere, but most people seem to have missed the point that Christ, the human side of Him, was the epitome of the good points of alpha traits combined with loyalty, faithfulness and perfect love, along with a periodically visible righteous and justified anger that inspired fear or changed beliefs in those who bore the brunt of it. A man’s man. I think he’d counsel us to man up, but to do so with our eyes open and to not tolerate bad behavior, correct those in error with love (in the sense of charity and interest in their well-being, not lust) in equal parts with firmness.

At the same time I suspect He would find our generalizations are in error when we veer towards the misogynist (“all women are this…”) just as the feminist’s misandry is mistaken (“all men are rapists.”) Although His counsel encouraged fellowship and community, he didn’t seem to see people by stereotype, but as individuals. So he could hang out with prostitutes and tax collectors and it didn’t bug him because he didn’t judge based on their job titles but on their hearts and actions, as individuals. That’s sort of an important point because one of the major problems between men and women right now (IMAO) is that each has this warped picture of “all men” or “all women.” That’s a bad premise for an argument because it’s false, and it’s also not really following in His example to generalize in that way; such condemning generalizations seem to have been the province of the Pharisees.

I engaged Sheila Gregoire yesterday at her blog. Dalrock above quoted commenter Rachel who suggested that the stranger man she shared an elevator with should maybe get off the elevator first to see if it is safe. I questioned this, asking why a man should do this for a woman who is a stranger to him. Here was Gregoire’s response:

“And given how vulnerable women are, I do think that men should watch over women if they’re in a potentially dangerous situation, in the same way that if I see a child under 8 walking around alone in a mall, I immediately stop what I’m doing and make sure there’s a caregiver in sight. That child is nothing to me, but what kind of person would I be if I didn’t check to make sure the child was safe?”

My reply was this:

“It’s been suggested here that a man should–nay, MUST — volunteer to put himself in harm’s way for a woman who is a total stranger to him. He MUST literally offer his life to protect a total stranger woman. It’s suggested on this page that a man should do this because “it is the right thing to do” and that it is how a man must honor and respect women.

Perhaps women should honor and respect men by:

1. When these situations present themselves, do as the men say.
2. Submit to the men’s reasonable directions, guidance and leadership.
3. Accept the sacrifice with appreciation, grace and gratitude, and offer to repay the help.”

“Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.”

If we are going to use that logic, every woman over 40 (or really 33+) should be put behind the men in any disaster.

Children, young women, men first.

Middle aged and older women should be sacrifcing themselves for everyone else because of the limited societal utility . . .

Being a white knight ripplies outward and screws men for generations.

The obvious result is men won’t do anything for women or society besides enough to get by and its playing out right now.

deti says:
January 25, 2012 at 10:01 am
“Here was Gregoire’s response: “…And given how vulnerable women are, I do think that men should watch over women if they’re in a potentially dangerous situation, in the same way that if I see a child under 8 walking around alone in a mall, I immediately stop what I’m doing and make sure there’s a caregiver in sight….””

Again, men CANNOT do this. We will end up in prison as pedophiles. If a women is so horible a parent she loses track of her young child, then it is her fault and responsibilty for any harm done to the child. Whether by other people or the child hurting themselves.

I assume it wasn’t a father alone with their child in public, he would already have been arrested.

Shhh!!! How dare you reveal the real reason for chivalriac manners! Holding the door, assisting with their coats and chairs, letting them go first off elevators, and all that good old stuff, was merely a method for, ahem, assessing a woman’s reproductive potential without being obvious. Gotta check out the waist hip ratio SOMEHOW after all…

^ Yup. The “religious”(Catholic) women I managed to observe at university were the first to say they “don’t have sex before marriage” and then broke it with the most alpha guys they could find.
How do I know?
Well, 2 people sharing a shower, later being asked by one of the guys(from another couple) “I came inside of her, how do I stop a pregnancy?” (He was 22!)…
And then after that being told that “men are so shallow, they must appreciate a woman regardless of her character”.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church does not excommunicate female abortionists if:
1) they did not know that excommunication was the penalty for abortion and
2) the fear of baby = financial burden or possibility of job loss caused them to have an abortion

So I guess all Catholic women have to do is to fake not knowing the religious penalty for abortion or failing that make a big stink about how life would be so hard with a baby AND the Catholic Church is tacitly encouraging female careerism when push comes to shove.

Wonder if a serial killer could go up to a priest and say “Father, I’ve killed a few people but they were financial burdens on society and I didn’t really know murder was religiously a bad thing so I guess I’ll be having the biscuit and wine today eh?”

If the boat was sinking with the last 1000 humans in existence, and only 500 lifeboat spots were available, there might be a valid reproductive reason for saving a higher proportion of women to re-breed. But that would include only women able and planning to repopulate the human race, and that would only matter in such an instance.
To claim that women should be saved preferentially off a random sinking ship in an otherwise-reproductively-stable world is ridiculous, and demonstrative of really really really bad justification logic..
That is an unbelievably abysmal claim for preferential status.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot Rosemary Radford Ruether from “Catholics for Choice”.
Again, that good old line: “It’s between me and God, who are you to judge … cast the first stone ye who has not sinned …” :x

I’ve read all of these comments and agree with most of them in regards to acting with manners to women, its perfectly correct that no women should expect chivalry as a right nor preferential treatment as the natural order of social intercourse. But I see it as just simply that exercising good manners makes me feel good, I’m not expecting praise nor applause if I give up my seat or open a door for any women, its just that the act of doing so, feels that I am acting within my own standards. Mostly its seen by the majority of women as firstly rather quaint and charming but finally slightly annoying. I don’t really care, for me this behavior is part of my upbringing and I don’t know how to change.
It has lead to some difficult but humorous incidents.
Many years ago I was in a elevator with a couple of people and one rather old lady, who once the doors had closed proceeded to pass wind quite loudly, I was very embarrassed on her behalf and feeling that I could help her in her distress, begged everyone’s pardon and apologized taking the blame on myself. At the next floor everyone got off except for me and one young women who got off at the next floor turning as she did with a smile saying “you crawling bastard”

Come to think of it, I couldn’t even quantify how many times I have offered to help a woman move something heavy like a computer or a box of books; only to be scoffed at as if I was some misogynistic pig. Why would I help someone if they immediately assumed I had an ulterior motive and acted with hostility towards me.

Men used to do that because women, at that time, were more gracious in general. In addition, in recognition of the great sacrifices men made in life in general, there were a certain amount of perks, benefits and respect accorded to responsible, hardworking, adult men. Well now women’s graciousness is gone, the perks and benefits are gone, but according to society, the responsibilities still remain. And they wonder why more men are opting out of that thankless role.

Since the sinking of the Titanic, there has been a widespread belief that the social norm of “women and children first” (WCF) gives women a survival advantage over men in maritime disasters, and that captains and crew members give priority to passengers. We analyze a database of 18 maritime disasters spanning three centuries, covering the fate of over 15,000 individuals of more than 30 nationalities. Our results provide a unique picture of maritime disasters. Women have a distinct survival disadvantage compared with men. Captains and crew survive at a significantly higher rate than passengers.

@Kari, that article was the result of (sour grapes) cherry-picked data, and either Elinder or Erixson, I forget which one, lost a female relative in the Estonia accident. In the Estonia wreck, the ferry flipped upside down while sinking after midnight, and essentially every survivor (after waking up by falling out of bed) had to climb up a ladder some 20 meters vertically in order to leave the ship. Clearly only people with sufficient upper body strength made it out, and less than 20% of the survivors were female. And those numbers wrecked the statistics.

“Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited) and children are our future to continue the human race.”

I’ve been waiting for someone to address this ultimate unspoken excuse for female entitlement syndrome, but all I’ve heard is *crickets*… So here goes:

Get this through your pretty little entitled heads, ladies: YOU DO NOT “CREATE LIFE” any more than a man creates his own sperm!

Got it? Probably not, but to take it further:
1) You ladies still cannot “create life” without a man, or a sperm donor.
2) Conception occurs without YOU doing a thing.
3) The fertilized egg splits and divides and forms rudimentary structures by ITSELF.

The level of self-worship is stunning here, since it is GOD who created the complex human reproductive system, and GOD who “knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

A woman taking credit for creating a baby, is like an oven squawking about the wonderful apple pie it just made.